Recently in Relaxers Category

Since some of you may have some general questions lingering about permanent waving, I'll quickly go over some generalities that might some common issues:

Happy New Years everyone. I wish you all a profitable and successful 2009.

I wanted to briefly talk about the impact of humidity, even though many of us in the north are a long ways from dealing with the issue. Infact we are probably longing for humid weather than the current cold and dry conditions we experience around this time of year.

In truth, humidity impacts all hair in a similar manner. Under high humidity, hair that has been styled counter to its natural texture tends to "go back home" to its original state. Curls in naturally straight hair will droop; wavy or curly hair worn in a straight style will return to its original waves and curls; excessively curly hair will tend to curl up or frizz.

With the latter hair type, however, the impact of humidity is simply more noticeable and the transition back to the original texture seems more dramatic. Even when African-descent hair is chemically relaxed to alter the natural texture, high humidity causes the hair shaft to swell, and hair reverts back towards its original texture somewhat. This is because relaxers are designed to remove a certain degree of the excessive curliness - not all of it.

image courtesty of: ohnotheyd!dn't

No-Lye No-Mix relaxers are based on lithium hydroxide as an active ingredient while other ingredients in the relaxer cream are very similar to Lye relaxers. The reaction of lithium hydroxide with the excessively curly hair is also similar to Lye and No-Lye relaxers. The one-third of the cystine bonds of the hair change to lanthionine bonds, leaving two-thirds of the cystine bonds still in tact.

The major advantage of lithium hydroxide over sodium or potassium hydroxide is that it is slightly less irritating to the scalp than sodium or potassium hydroxide.

However, lithium hydroxide is not as effective in straightening excessively curly hair and in order to achieve acceptable level of straightening, more lithium hydroxide has to be added to the cream relaxer formula.

The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considers lithium hydroxide relaxers as no-lye relaxers and the manufacturers of relaxers call this category as a No-Lye and No-Mix relaxer to exploit this fact. This relaxer system is not as efficient in straightening hair as sodium, potassium, or guanidine hydroxides, which is probably why this type of relaxer system enjoys limited success in the market place.

There are a wide array of styles and textures available to today's salon clientele. With so many options, the ability to switch from one look to another has never been more important.

To answer the question--can relaxed hair be stripped?--it is necessary that we first understand the chemistry of the hair, as well as the lanthionization (relaxation) process.

When two or more polypeptides align themselves parallel to each other, and their cysteines (amino acid) combine with each other to form cystine or disulfide bonds across these polypeptides, a keratin fiber is created in the process.

Hair, or keratin according to chemical terminology, is made up of polypeptides. (Polypeptides are made up of amino acids -- the basic unit of protein.) Polypeptides are aligned in a parallel fashion and are cross linked with cystine bonds (also called disulfide bonds). Note that cystine bonds have two sulfur atoms.

When excessively curly hair is chemically straightened with hydroxide-based relaxers, (i.e., sodium, potassium, lithium, and guanidine hydroxide, etc.) approximately one-third of the cystine bonds are changed to lanthionine bonds. The lanthionine bond has only a single sulfur atom; one sulfur atom less than the cystine bond of virgin hair.

With the state of the current US financial markets the way that they are, many should be getting accustomed to wild swings in daily performance. I figured that now would be an apt time to discuss the pH of hair during relaxing. The pH of the hair goes through considerable changes during the relaxing process and it is appropriate to discuss these changes because such changes can be made to play a positive role in the art and science of relaxing hair. The following events take place before, during, and after relaxing with respect to the pH of the hair, swelling of the hair, and the state of cuticles:

I recently created a channel on YouTube, so from now on, please be sure to check here and my YouTube channel for new videos. Here are a few YouTube clips from the latest FiberGuard Bridge Conditioning Serum DVD:

Chapter 1:

I wanted to re-introduce everyone to the new and improved Syntonics brand. The emphasis of Syntonics will be developing solutions for hairstylists that contain natural and botanical ingredients that will functionally work in synergy to maintain the integrity of your hair and scalp while providing excellent results.

Please note that we are not just dumping natural ingredients into our products like some other brands, just for the sake of marketing. Each ingredient has been tested for effectiveness and used in a specific concentration in order to repair the scalp and hair during and after the relaxing process.

In my slides I will cover the Syntonics Relaxer System, Maintenance Products, and Finishing Products. As always, feel free to ask any questions in the comments section.

Here's a paper I helped author back in 1998 regarding recent advances in the treatment of excessively curly hair. While I know that 1998 was ten years ago, the paper contains good content regarding the history of relaxers as well as how modern-day relaxers work.

Recent Advances in Treating Excessively Curly Hair

Cationic polyamines and starch hydrolysates

Ali N. Syed, Hasan Ayoub and Anna Kuhajda

Avlon Industries Inc., Bedford Park, IL USA

In literature, innovation is defined as the initiation or adoption of new products, processes or ideas by organizations. Such innovations have taken place in the care of excessively curly hair. These developments did not catch the attention of the masses in the US because a relatively small segment of the population possesses curly hair. On a worldwide scale, however, the number becomes larger when we include individuals from Africa, the Caribbean, South America, the Middle East, Asia and North America, According to some estimates, this segment with excessively curly hair has grown to equal a $1.5 billion (US) industry.

A History
Before discussing the history of the curly hair-care industry, it is necessary to understand
the nature of excessively curly hair. Compared to straight hair, excessively curly hair is like a twisted ribbon in terms of its physical configuration. It is difficult to comb both in its wet and dry states, is hard to style and is highly unmanageable. More fragile than straight hair, excessively curly hair breaks more readily upon stretching, excessive combing and brushing. Thus, excessively curly hair requires special handling and specially formulated products that are different from Caucasian hair-care formulas.

I know the taboo in the industry, that relaxing and coloring on the same day is a big no-no, but we at Avlon aren't worried about what can't be done; we are focused on bringing professional stylists new possibilities and new solutions.

Our hottest and latest solution, the FiberGuard Bridge Conditioning Serum will enable stylists to relax and color the same day when using the serum with a FiberGuard relaxer system and our MoisturColor permanent color system. I'd say over 20 years of research have gone into the creation of this tiny yet potent product.

In 2000, I co-authored an article for C&T magazine regarding the scalp irritation potential of lye and no-lye relaxers. The article includes our findings from a study based on comfort/discomfort evaluations from salon patrons.

Compared to Caucasian hair, African-American hair is extremely curly and it's physical configuration resembles a twisted ribbon. It is highly unmanageable. very difficult to
comb-both wet and dry-and hard to style. More fragile than Caucasian hair, this excessively curly hair breaks more easily when stretched or vigorously brushed and combed. Thus, African-American hair requires both special handling and hair-care
products that are differently formulated than those for Caucasian hair.

Madam C. J. Walker: A Beauty Product Pioneer

Madam C. J. Walker was an early 20th century beauty product pioneer. She was born under the name Sarah Breedlove to ex-slaves in 1867. In her early life, she worked in both
the cotton fields and the kitchen. In 1905, after marrying newspaper sales agent Charles Joseph Walker, she adopted his name and developed expertise in manufacturing
hair goods and preparations.

Walker soon launched her own business, designing cosmetics and hair-care products for black women. From this business she became one of the nation's first female millionaires. Using her success for the good of others, she earned a reputation as a philanthropist to
African-American institutions such as the NAACP, Tuskegee Institute and Bethune-Cookman College. She died in 1919.

In 1998, the US Postal Service issued a stamp commemorating her achievement as an African-American businesswoman and philanthropist. The image on the stamp is from a circa 1914 photo that was used extensively by Walker's company for publicity purposes, in advertising, and on its products.

The Development of Relaxers

In the early 1900s, an African-American domestic worker, later known as Madam C. J. Walker, invented pomade using a combination of oils (see sidebar). This pomade revolutionized the hairstyling practices of African-American women and made excessively curly hair softer, shinier and somewhat easier to comb. However, the pomade did not
straighten the hair. African-American women still could not achieve styles like those worn by Caucasian women.

In 1905, Madam Walker invented a straightening comb to address this need. This comb could be heated on the stove and used in conjunction with her pomade. Such treatment left the hair shiny, silky, and temporarily straight. This method became known as the Walker Method and was later referred to as "hair pressing."

Lye relaxers: Until the 1950s, the problems of extremely curly hair were not fully addressed by the existing hair-care businesses because of a technology void. This changed in 1965. when an innovative permanent hair straightener for African-American consumers was introduced. Its active ingredient was sodium hydroxide, or lye. This chemical method for relaxing the hair eliminated the need for temporary hair straightening by the Walker Method.

The relative advantages of chemical hair straightening over the Walker Method were numerous, and the adoption of permanent hair straightening advanced rapidly. This innovation had social ramifications as well. For the first time, African-American women could wear the styles that dominated the American culture. Sales of relaxers soon became viable products in the industry.

Competitive forces began to address the weaknesses of this first-generation relaxer cream in the late 1960s. The first generation relaxers tended to overprocess hair and diminish its strength. They irritated the scalp and were difficult to rinse out of the hair. They also had a short shelf life because the oil and water phases present in the relaxer cream tended to separate with time. Upon separation of the cream, the water-soluble sodium hydroxide was present only in the water phase, resulting in inconsistent straightening
of the hair.

Texturizing relaxers: In 1971, a relaxer cream called a texturizing relaxer was introduced. It addressed some of the above-mentioned concerns. This cream was more stable in hot and cold temperatures and provided slightly more scalp comfort by being less irritating. This relaxer cream straightened hair slightly less than the previous relaxer, but it was
more acceptable to hair stylists and consumers because of its relatively greater
comfort potential and better stability between room temperature and 45°C. Formula 1 shows a prototype of this relaxer.

Over the years, more and more hair stylists started to use texturizing cream relaxers. This product has became a benchmark in the African-American hair-care industry. A benchmark product is one that is superior in its attributes, quality, cost, and performance
and has been used by consumers for a long lime.

No-Lye relaxers: Because of the high irritation potential of texturizing cream relaxers containing sodium hydroxide as an active ingredient, efforts were underway to formulate relaxers that possessed less irritation potential to the scalp. In 1978, a patented two-component cream relaxer, formulated with the active ingredient
guanidine hydroxide, was introduced to the marketplace as a 'no-lye' relaxer with claims that it was less irritating to the scalp. Mixing a cream containing calcium hydroxide with a liquid activator containing guanidine carbonate produced the guanidine hydroxide. Formula 2 shows a prototype of this relaxer.

In 1997, Syed mentioned that no-lye relaxers have significantly less irritation potential than lye relaxers containing sodium hydroxide as an active ingredient. Amin et al. (1998) have also mentioned that no-lye relaxers are milder to the scalp than lye relaxers containing sodium hydroxide. However, none of these authors cites references on this subject.

De la Guardia compared guanidine relaxer of his invention to a commercially available relaxer containing sodium hydroxide. After applying the two formulations to the skin of rabbits, he concluded that guanidine hydroxide relaxer did not produce irritation. On the other hand, the sodium hydroxide based relaxer resulted in minor to severe irritation
at various treatment times. However, to the best of our knowledge, there is no study in existence that compares the irritation potential of lye relaxers against that of no-Iye
relaxers on the scalp of human subjects.

The Irritation Potential of Relaxers

It is pertinent to discuss what we mean by irritation here. Malten in 1981 described irritation as irritant contact dermatitis that is localized, superficial, exudative, nonimmunological inflammation of the skin or scalp due to the direct influence of one or more external factors. Pieter, van der Valk and Tupker believe that, in general, symptoms arrive quickly after the exposure and heal steadily.

The relaxers are considered as cosmetics products. Generally, they may cause a stinging, itching or burning sensation during their application. If a patron experiences a severe stinging that is unbearable, it is recommended that a relaxer cream be rinsed off from the scalp using tepid tap water followed by an acidic shampoo. It is known in the trade that improperly formulated lye relaxers can cause severe scalp irritation and chemical burns. This type of irritation is called sensory irritation or subjective irritation. Although the mechanisms by which materials produce sensory or subjective irritation are not yet completely known, Maibach and Johnson have presented some possible mechanisms for this type of irritation.

It is our observation that the application of relaxers may cause sensory complaints of stinging, itching or burning to the scalp, and that these complaints go away after rinsing the relaxer. This irritation is localized and does not spread to the other parts of the
scalp and skin. Therefore, it is probably safe to say that irritation induced by lye and no-lye relaxers is nonimmunological.

Many attempts have been made to use colorimeters on African-American skin to measure erythema, a principal sign of irritation on white skin. This technique fails to produce reliable
results on African-American skin due to its darker natural pigmentation. An alternative method may be the use of a laser blood flow measuring device, but so far there is no significant scientific work cited in this area.

Lacking complete knowledge about the mechanisms by which materials produce sensory irritation, and unable to use the erythema test on African-American skin, we decided to use
comfort/discomfort evaluations from our salon patrons as markers of relaxer irritation potential.

Comparing Relaxers' Irritation Potential

Purpose of the study: From patrons in our salon, we obtained comfort/discomfort evaluations as indications of the irritation potential of lye and no-lye relaxer creams at two different strengths. We applied the creams to the scalps of 1103 Chicago area African-American individuals with excessively curly hair over a five-year period.

The lye relaxer (Formula 1) contained sodium hydroxide as an active ingredient. For the no-lye relaxer (Formula 2), guanidine hydroxide was the active ingredient. Each relaxer was formulated twice: at a "normal" strength and at a "resistant" strength.

The comfort-discomfort response was measured using the five-point Likert scale at each relaxer treatment. Simultaneously, trained salon technicians evaluated the scalp before
and after each treatment to observe any scalp fissuring, scalp burns and scalp erythema.

The purpose of this study was to compare the irritation potential of the no-lye relaxer against that or a lye relaxer. It was also important to measure the degree of comfort or
discomfort for each relaxer category for benchmarking purposes. More specifically, this study attempted to verify the following hypotheses:

1. The irritation potential of a no-lye cream relaxer containing guanidine hydroxide as an active ingredient is significantly less than that of a lye cream relaxer containing sodium hydroxide as an active ingredient at a constant degree of straightening.

2, The no-lye cream relaxer imparts significantly less 'severe', 'moderate', 'mild', and 'minor' irritation as compared to the lye relaxer.

The significance of this study is that it serves as the starting point or baseline measurement of irritation potential of present relaxer creams and thus serves as a benchmark for the future studies for formulating less irritating relaxer creams.

Experimental procedure: Two strengths of lye relaxer were prepared and labeled "normal" and "resistant" based on their concentration of sodium hydroxide. Similarly, two strengths of no-lye relaxer with guanidine hydroxide were prepared and labeled. In all comparisons, the two relaxer types were of equivalent strengths; that is, both were normal strength or both were resistant strength.

The individuals who took part in this study had excessively curly hair and ranged in age from 18 to 65 years. Each individual was given a treatment of a specific strength lye relaxer (n = 513) or no-lye relaxer (n = 590) for a specified time of 13 to 18 min depending upon the texture of the individual's hair. For an individual with medium-textured hair, the preferred treatment was a normal strength relaxer for 15 min. For an individual with coarse-textured hair, the preferred treatment was a resistant strength relaxer for 18 min.

The hair stylists were first trained in the application of these relaxers and the application technique used in this study was very similar for both relaxers. A petrolatum jelly was applied to the hairline and ears for protection, and the hair was parted into four equal parts from the middle of the forehead and then from ear to ear. The cream relaxer was applied to the virgin portion of the hair only, first to the back section using a soft small brush or a rattail comb and then worked through the next sections in a clockwise direction.

Once the application was complete, which took an average of 8 min, the cream was smoothed with the back of the rattail comb, section by section, to achieve the desired degree of straightening before rinsing the hair thoroughly with tepid tap water.

At the end of the treatment time, the relaxer was rinsed with water, and then conditioned with a standard conditioner of pH 5.0 containing cationic polymers and quaternary ammonium chlorides for 5 min. The hair was then shampooed using standard neutralizing shampoo and evaluated.

Evaluation: The hair was evaluated for various attributes such as degree of straightening and the patron's perception of comfort or discomfort level. Figure 1 shows the questionnaire used in evaluating irritation potential and straightening of hair. This questionnaire records the patron's impression of the comfort or discomfort (irritation)
imparted by the relaxer during its application. The following five-point likert scale was used by each patron to rate the comfort level of the relaxer:

1 = Severe irritation
2 = Moderate irritation
3 = Mild irritation
4 = Minor irritation
5 = Very comfortable

The discomfort was associated with the irritation potential of the relaxer. The highest form of discomfort was severe irritation and the lowest form of discomfort was considered to be the minor irritation. A patron response indicating that there was no irritation during the relaxer process was recorded as very comfortable.

Results and Discussion

Comparing average comfort scores: When the relaxers were compared at normal strength as shown in Table 1, the average comfort scores were 4.90 for no-lye relaxer and 4.55 for lye relaxer. The difference in the groups is statistically significant at a p value of less than 0.00. Therefore, it is evident that at normal strength, the no-lye relaxer is significantly more comfortable to the scalp during relaxer treatment than the lye relaxer.

When the relaxers were compared at resistant strength as shown in Table 2, the average comfort scores were 4.94 for no-lye relaxer and 4.57 for lye relaxers. The difference in the
groups is statistically significant at a p value of less than 0.00. Therefore, it is evident that at resistant strength the no-lye relaxer is significantly more comfortable to the scalp during
relaxer treatment than the lye relaxer.

Comparing the average straightening ability scores:
As shown in Table 3, at normal strength, the relaxers showed average straightening ability scores of 4.31 for the no-lye relaxer and 4.10 for the lye relaxer. Therefore, a no-lye relaxer
is significantly better in its straightening ability at a p value of less than 0.00. Even then, the no-lye relaxer is less irritating than a lye relaxer.

As shown in Table 4, at resistant strength, the relaxers showed average straightening ability scores of 4.17 for the no-lye relaxer and 4.26 for the lye relaxer. With a p value of less than 0.56, there is no significant difference in the straightening ability of these two formulas. Although, they are equal in their straightening qualities at resistant strength, the no-lye relaxer is less irritating to the human scalp than the lye relaxer.

Irritation Index: For each relaxer and its irritation evaluation scores, we calculated an irritation index based on the following equation:

Irritation Index = (MPSC - ASC) / MPSC x 100

where MPSC = maximum possible scalp comfort score
ASC = average scalp comfort score

The maximum possible scalp comfort score is always 5.0. The average scalp comfort score is the response of the patron about a relaxer's comfort or irritation level. From the irritation potential scores in Tables 1 and 2, we obtained the irritation indices shown in Table 5. For example, the average scalp comfort score for normal strength lye relaxer is 4.55 from Table 1 column 1; therefore, the irritation index will be calculated as (5.00 - 4.55) / 5.00 x 100 = 9.00.

It is obvious from these indices that no-lye normal and resistant formulas have the smallest irritation indices. They are therefore, least irritating to the scalp and the salon patrons are
more comfortable during the treatment with these two relaxers. On the other hand, lye relaxers show a very high irritation index and are significantly more prone to irritate the scalp of salon patrons. Ideally, formulating chemists should try to lower the irritation index of a given formula to as close to zero as possible. Therefore, this technique may prove to be of some help to the formulating chemists when testing the irritation index of a relaxer in the R&D testing salon.

Irritation levels for each relaxer type: At normal strength, the lye relaxer tends to impart irritation in 20.30% of the patrons while a no-lye relaxer imparts irritation to 5.40% of the patrons (Table 6). Similarly, at resistant strength the lye relaxer tends to impart irritation in 13.60% of patrons while the no-lye relaxer imparts irritation to 2.90% of the patrons (Table 7).

Severity of irritation in lye relaxers is significantly higher than in no-lye relaxers, as shown in Tables 6 and 7 and in Figures 2 and 3. The lye relaxer (normal) imparts severe, moderate, mild, and minor irritation in 1.33%, 6.67%, 7.2%, and 5.1% of patrons,
respectively. Similarly, the no-lye relaxer (normal) imparts severe, moderate, mild, and minor irritation to 0.83%, 0%, 2.1%, and 2.5% of the population. It is clear from Figures 2 and 3 that no-lye relaxers are considerably gentler the scalp compared to lye relaxers.

Conclusion

No·lye relaxers show significantly less scalp irritation than lye relaxers, regardless of whether the irritation is rated as severe, moderate, mild or minor. Therefore, the no-lye relaxer is most suitable for individuals of African descent or for individuals with excessively
curly hair and sensitive scalp.

No·lye relaxers keep the scalp comfortable 95-97% of the time while lye relaxers are able to keep the scalp comfortable only 80-83% of the lime. We suggest that these ranges become a guide in testing the relaxers in the laboratory or in the marketplace to gauge a relaxer's acceptance in terms of its irritation potential to the scalp.

We believe that this study is the first salon study that compares the irritation potential of lye relaxers against no-lye relaxers. It could become a benchmark for the industry to develop newer, low irritation or non-irritation relaxers.